The United States Federal Courts have had the opportunity to hear and rule on this case as a result of Ms. Carrascosa's filing of a Writ of Habeas Corpus. From the Latin "produce the body" this action asks the federal courts for relief from an incarceration imposed by a state court and claims such punishment is unfair. This is an appeal-of-last-resort used by many prison inmates who hope to escape their sentances.
In her filing, Ms. Carrascosa claims that she is being illegally incarcerated as a result of an unfair proceeding in the New Jersey State Courts. Her arguments surround the Spanish Court rulings that she claims recognize her as the custodial parent and rule that her removal of Victoria was legal under Spanish law and under the Hague treaty.
Both the District Court in Newark, New Jersey and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit in Philadelphia ruled that her petition was to be denied. In their extensive rulings both courts recognized the failure of the Spanish Courts to follow the mandates of the Hague Convention Treaty .
In addition, both courts ruled that:
1. The removal of Victoria Innes from New Jersey was illegal under both state and federal laws.
2. New Jersey was the proper and exclusive jurisdiction to determine the custody of Victoria Innes .
3. New Jersey state courts had ruled fairly and had every right to impose sanctions against Ms. Carrascosa.
4. The parties October 2004 parenting agreement was a legal and binding agreement.
With both state and federal appeals exhausted, Ms. Carrascosa filed an appeal for certification with the United States Supreme Court. Her petition has been denied twice, effectively ending all litigation in the United States.
|
|
